Search Results

The SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System Spacer, either used individually or assembled to the SIRION plate, is indicated for intervertebral body fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine at one or two contiguous levels from L1-L2 to L5-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). SIRION Spacers are to be used with autogenous bone graft and supplemental fixation. Approved supplemental fixation includes the Olympic Posterior Spinal Fixation System. Patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

The SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System Plate, in 2-hole and 4-hole configurations, is indicated for use via a lateral or anterolateral surgical approach above the bifurcation of the great vessels in the treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar (T1-L5) spine instability or via the anterior surgical approach, below the bifurcation of the great vessels in the treatment of lumbar and lumbosacral (L1-S1) spine instability as a result of: fracture (including dislocation and subluxation), tumor, degenerative disc disease (defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies), scoliosis, kyphosis, lordosis, spinal stenosis, or a failed previous spine surgery.

The SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System Plate, 1-hole buttress configuration is intended for use in conjunction with traditional supplemental fixation to maintain the relative position of interbody spacers during spinal fusion. The 1-hole plate is not intended for use in load-bearing applications

Hyperlordotic interbody devices (>20° lordosis) must be used in conjunction with the SIRION plate for fixation.

SIRION X must be used with supplemental fixation (e.g. posterior fixation) that has been cleared by the FDA for use in the lumbar spine.

The Sirion Lateral Lumbar Interbody devices are implants developed for the substitution of the classical autogenous bone graft blocks. The cages assist to avoid complications related to the bone graft donation site (chronic pain, hematoma, infection, bone removal from the donor site making it impossible to remove bone again, quality of the iliac bone, accessing a healthy donor site that may become an unhealthy site, hernias by the incision). They are available in a range of footprints and heights to suit the individual pathology and anatomical conditions of the patient. The implants have a hollow center to allow placement of autogenous bone graft. The superior and inferior surfaces are open to promote contact of the bone graft with the vertebral end plates, allowing bone growth (arthrodesis). The Sirion cages are designed to be used in conjunction with supplemental spinal fixation instrumentation.

The provided document, a 510(k) summary for the SIRION Lateral Lumbar Interbody System, does not contain information regarding a study that proves a device meets acceptance criteria related to an AI/ML medical device.

The document describes a medical device, an intervertebral body fusion system, and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices. The "Non-clinical Test Summary" explicitly states that tests like Static and Dynamic compression/shear, Subsidence, and Expulsion were conducted, and a "Clinical Test Summary" explicitly states: "No clinical studies were performed."

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets the acceptance criteria, as the document pertains to a traditional medical device (spinal implant) and not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or treatment device that would typically involve the kind of performance evaluation you're asking about (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, human reader improvement).

The information you asked for, such as sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, expert consensus, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details, is relevant to AI/ML device evaluations, but is not present in this 510(k) submission for a physical implant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intersomatic Cervical Device - DICOM PEEK is intended for anterior interbody spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one disc level (C2-C3 disc to the C7-T1 disc). Cervical degenerative disc disease is defined as neck pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. This device is intended for use with additional supplemental fixation systems and autogenous bone graft implanted via an open, anterior approach. Patients should have at least six weeks of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with intervertebral cage.

The Intersomatic Intervertebral Space Maintenance Device - DIMEI PEEK and Intersomatic Transforaminal - TLIF PEEK is indicated for intervertebral body spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). DIMEI and TLIF Spinal Implants are to be used with autogenous bone graft and implanted via an open posterior or transforaminal approach. The DIMEI and TLIF Spinal Implant is to be used with additional supplemental fixation. Patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage.

The Intersomatic Cervical Device - DICOM PEEK, Intersomatic Intervertebral Space Maintenance Device - DIMEI PEEK and Intersomatic Transforaminal - TLIF PEEK were developed as implants for the stabilization of the cervical and lumbar spinal column. The implants have ridges on both their inferior and superior surfaces to prevent migration, and graft windows which help facilitate bony integration. X-ray markers are integrated for visualization of the implants during and after surgery.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and study information for the Intersomatic Cervical Device - DICOM PEEK, Intersomatic Intervertebral Space Maintenance Device - DIMEI PEEK, and Intersomatic Transforaminal - TLIF PEEK devices.

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary, these devices are intervertebral body fusion devices, and the submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing performance against specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria from a clinical study for a novel AI/software function.

Therefore, most of the requested fields related to AI/software performance, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and MRMC studies are not applicable to this particular device submission. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to the regulatory standards and testing required for this type of medical implant to demonstrate safety and effectiveness equivalent to existing devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. The testing described is non-clinical mechanical testing of the physical implant, not a study involving patient data or a "test set" in the context of AI/software performance.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The data comes from benchtop mechanical testing, not human subjects.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for AI/software (e.g., diagnostic labels) is not relevant for this type of mechanical device testing. The "ground truth" for mechanical testing is established by adherence to ASTM standards and engineering principles.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable. There was no clinical or expert-based adjudication in the context of this submission. The "adjudication" for mechanical testing is based on whether the device passed the specified ASTM standards.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. No MRMC study was performed as these are physical medical implants, not AI/software for interpretation.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Not applicable. No algorithm-only performance study was conducted.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this submission are the established ASTM standards for mechanical testing of intervertebral body fusion devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There was no "training set" in the context of an AI/software algorithm.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. There was no "training set" or corresponding ground truth to establish.

Summary of the Study:

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for three intervertebral body fusion devices: Intersomatic Cervical Device - DICOM PEEK, Intersomatic Intervertebral Space Maintenance Device - DIMEI PEEK, and Intersomatic Transforaminal - TLIF PEEK.

The study relied on non-clinical mechanical testing to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to previously marketed predicate devices, as is common for Class II medical devices in the 510(k) pathway.

Specifically, the following analyses were conducted:

• Static and dynamic compression per ASTM F2077
• Static and dynamic torsion per ASTM F2077
• Subsidence per ASTM F2267

The manufacturer, Osteomed Implantes, LTDA, concluded that the DICOM PEEK, DIMEI PEEK, and TLIF PEEK devices are equivalent to the predicate devices based on similarities in principles of operation, technology, materials, and indications for use, supported by the results of these non-clinical evaluations.

No clinical studies were performed. The submission explicitly states this.

Ground Truth for Non-clinical Testing: The ground truth for this type of testing is adherence to the specified ASTM international standards (ASTM F2077 for compression/torsion and ASTM F2267 for subsidence), which are recognized benchmarks for evaluating the mechanical properties of intervertebral body fusion devices. The devices are expected to meet or exceed the performance of the predicate devices under these test conditions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SpineFrontier Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System (Dorado IBC, Dorado PLIFT, Dorado ELIFT, Arena-L, Dorado TILT, Dorado TLIFT, Dorado Wide, and Ursa S-LIFT) is intended for intervertebral body fusion of the spine of skeletally mature patients, using autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The device is indicated for use in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2-S1. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s).

Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history or radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.

The SpineFrontier Lumbar Intervertebral Body Fusion Device System is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation system(s) cleared for use in the lumbar spine.

The SpineFrontier Ti-Coated Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System is a spinal intervertebral body fusion device system intended for intervertebral body fusion of the spine of skeletally mature patients, using autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The system is comprised of devices made of titanium coated PEEK Optima® LT1, with varying widths, lengths, and heights to fit the anatomical needs of patients. The devices have raised contours on the superior and inferior surfaces that will resist device movement following implant.

The purpose of this submission is the addition of a CP-Ti coating on a previously cleared lumbar intervertebral fusion device.

The provided document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the SpineFrontier Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System. This document is a regulatory submission for a medical device and, as such, does not contain information about the performance of an AI/ML powered device, nor does it include a study that proves a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported device performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through a comparison of technological characteristics and non-clinical mechanical performance testing. The 'Performance Data' section lists various ASTM standards used for mechanical testing of the device and its coating, but these are related to the physical properties and durability of the implantable device, not the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Luna 360 Interbody Fusion System consists of the Luna 360 Implant and associated accessories. This system is indicated for spinal fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with symptomatic degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These DDD patients may also have up to grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). The Luna 360 System is to be used with autogenous bone graft. Patients receiving the device should have had at least six months of nonoperative treatment prior to receiving the Luna 360 Implant. The Luna 360 System is to be used with supplemental fixation.

The Benvenue Luna 360 System consists of the Luna 360 Implant and associated accessories set of disposable accessories for use in lumbar fusion procedures to treat degenerative disc disease. The proposed indications for use for the Luna 360 System are identical to predicate interbody lumbar cages. The Luna 360 Implant is provided pre-loaded and sterile within a single-use Insertion Tool.

The Luna 360 Implant is available in heights ranging from 8mm to 13mm in 1mm increments. A series of vertically oriented slots allows the device to flex and enables it to be inserted from a straight cannula and then attain a closed, fixed, and circular shape upon being placed into the disc space with a bone graft pocket. Teeth engage the implant into the adjacent endplates.

The Luna 360 Implant is manufactured from polyetheretherketone (PEEK Optima LT-1), stainless steel, tantalum, and silicone lubricant (NuSil MED-360).

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Luna 360 Interbody Fusion System." This document is primarily concerned with establishing substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than presenting a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics typically found in AI/ML medical device submissions.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods is not available in the provided text, as this type of information is generally not required for this specific device type and approval pathway.

The device is an intervertebral body fusion device, not an AI/ML algorithm, and thus the concepts of "acceptance criteria" for algorithm performance, "test set," "training set," "ground truth," "MRMC studies," or "standalone performance" as they relate to AI/ML devices do not apply here.

However, the document does contain information about performance testing relevant to a medical device's physical and mechanical properties.

Here's a breakdown of the relevant information provided:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria (Implicit): The implicit acceptance criterion is that the device demonstrates mechanical properties that are "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, particularly regarding static/dynamic compression, shear-compression, torsion, subsidence, and expulsion. The specific numerical thresholds for "acceptance" are not explicitly stated as they would be in an AI/ML performance summary, but rather implied by meeting the standards of similar devices.
• Reported Device Performance:
  • Mechanical Testing: The tests demonstrated that the Luna Interbody System is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices in static/dynamic compression, static/dynamic shear-compression, static/dynamic torsion testing (per ASTM F2077), static subsidence (ASTM F2267), and expulsion testing (ASTM Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02).
  • Cadaveric Testing: Performed to validate the surgical technique.
  • MR Compatibility Testing: Performed to demonstrate MR safety.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not applicable for this type of device and testing. The "test set" in this context refers to the physical devices undergoing mechanical and material testing, not a dataset of patient images or clinical outcomes.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable. "Ground truth" in this context would likely refer to engineering specifications or validated test methods, rather than expert diagnostic opinions.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done

• Not applicable.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• For the mechanical testing, the "ground truth" would be the established ASTM standards (F2077, F2267, and ASTM Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02) and engineering principles for mechanical performance. For MR compatibility, the "ground truth" would be established MR safety protocols.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document details the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device (intervertebral body fusion system) based on substantial equivalence to existing devices, supported by a series of mechanical and material performance tests. It does not involve a clinical study or AI/ML algorithm, and therefore the specific questions related to AI/ML validation are not addressed by the text.

Ask a specific question about this device

JULIET® Lumbar Interbody Device is indicated for intervertebral body fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). This device is to be used with autogenous bone graft. JULIET® Lumbar Interbody Device is to be used with supplemental fixation. Patients should have at least six (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage

The JULIET® PO are rectangle-shaped intervertebral body fusion devices with a central cavity that can be filled with bone graft (autograft) to facilitate fusion. The JULIET®PO is made of PEEK Optima LT-1 conforming to ASTM F2026 with Tantalum markers conforming to ASTM F560.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called JULIET® PO, an intervertebral body fusion device. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than an in-depth study proving performance against specific acceptance criteria for an AI/algorithm-driven device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/algorithm performance studies cannot be extracted or are not applicable. However, I can extract information related to the device's physical performance testing.

Here's a summary based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation of the Table: The document states that the tests were conducted "according to ASTM F2077" and "according to ASTM F2267." This implies that the acceptance criteria are defined by these ASTM standards for intervertebral body fusion devices. The conclusion states that "Results demonstrate that JULIET®PO performs as safely and effectively as its predicate devices" and "Non clinical performance testing demonstrates that JULIET®PO is substantially equivalent to predicate devices." This suggests that the device met the performance requirements outlined in those ASTM standards, relative to the predicate devices.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

The document does not specify the sample size for the mechanical testing of the JULIET® PO device itself (e.g., how many devices were tested for each mechanical test). The data provenance is also not specified; it is assumed to be lab-based mechanical testing, not clinical data from patients or a specific country. This is a non-clinical, mechanical test, not a study involving human data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts

Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, and the "ground truth" for its performance is established through standardized physical tests (ASTM standards), not human expert consensus.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

Not applicable. There is no human adjudication process described for mechanical testing.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. The JULIET® PO is a physical intervertebral body fusion device, not an AI or algorithm-driven diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Not applicable. The JULIET® PO is a physical intervertebral body fusion device, not an AI algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for the device's performance is based on mechanical test results conducted according to established ASTM standards (F2077 and F2267). The performance is then compared to the known performance of predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

Not applicable. There is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Integra® Expandable Intervertebral Body Fusion Device (IBD) System is intended for spinal fusion procedures at one or two contiguous levels (L2-S1) in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). DDD is defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. DDD patients may also have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). These patients may have had a previous non-fusion spinal surgery at the involved spinal level(s). These patients should have had six months of non-operative treatment. The device is intended to be used with autogenous bone graft and supplemental fixation.

The Integra Expandable IBD System consists of lumbar interbody fusion devices manufactured from PEEK-OPTIMA® LT1 (ASTM F2026), titanium (Ti-6Al-4V ELI per ASTM F136) and cobalt chromium (Co-28Cr-6Mo per ASTM F1537) materials, with radiographic tantalum markers (ASTM F560). These implants are generally box shaped with surface teeth and a central channel to be filled with autogenous bone graft. They are available in a range of sizes, and their heights can be intra-operatively expanded to the desired height to accommodate variations in surgical approach and patient anatomy. Non-expandable implants are manufactured from PEEK-OPTIMA® LT1 only with radiopaque markers. The system also includes instruments to assist with the surgical procedure/ implantation, as well as trays and caddies for organization.

This is a medical device application for an intervertebral body fusion device, not an AI/ML device. Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, study data, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment, which are typical for studies validating AI/ML performance, is not applicable in this context.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information cannot be provided given the input:

• Device Type: The Integra Expandable IBD System is a physical medical implant (intervertebral body fusion device) made of PEEK, titanium, and cobalt chromium. It is not a software algorithm or an AI/ML diagnostic tool.
• Regulatory Pathway: This is a 510(k) premarket notification, which demonstrates substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. This pathway typically relies on non-clinical (bench) testing and comparison to existing devices, rather than large-scale clinical trials or AI/ML performance studies with specific acceptance criteria like sensitivity, specificity, etc.
• Non-Clinical Testing: The submission explicitly states "Non-clinical Testing: The Integra Expandable IBD System demonstrated equivalent performance to the predicate systems through static and dynamic axial compression shear testing per ASTM F2077, with wear evaluation per ASTM F1877, subsidence testing per ASTM F2267, and expulsion testing per ASTM Draft F04.25.0202. In addition, a cadaver implantation study was conducted to demonstrate usability and graft containment/volume of the subject device."
• Clinical Testing: The submission explicitly states "Clinical Testing: No clinical testing was required to demonstrate equivalence."

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the questions as they pertain to AI/ML device validation. The provided document concerns a traditional medical device demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance standards and a cadaver study, not through a study involving AI performance metrics, readers, or ground truth as defined in an AI context.

Ask a specific question about this device

The INTESS Lumbar Cage is indicated for intervertebral body fusion procedures in skeletally mature patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) of the lumbar spine at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. These DDD patients may have up to Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at the involved level(s). INTESS Lumbar Cage implants are to be used with autogenous bone graft and implanted via a transforaminal approach, or an open posterior or lateral approach. The INTESS Lumbar Cage implants are to be used with supplemental fixation. Patients should have at least (6) months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with an intervertebral cage. Patients with previous non-fusion spinal surgery at involved level may be treated with the device.

The INTESS Lumbar Cage was developed as implants for the stabilization of the lumbar spinal column. The INTESS implants have ridges on both their inferior and superior surfaces to prevent migration, and graft windows which help facilitate bony integration. X-ray markers are integrated for visualization of the implants after surgery.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the INTESS Lumbar Cage. It describes the device, its intended use, and the non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

However, the provided document explicitly states under "6. CLINICAL TEST SUMMARY": "No clinical studies were performed".

This means that the document does not contain any information about:

• Acceptance criteria for device performance based on clinical data.
• A study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria through clinical data.
• Sample sizes for test sets (as no test set from a clinical study was used).
• Number of experts, their qualifications, or adjudication methods for ground truth (as no clinical ground truth was established through expert review).
• MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Type of ground truth used (clinical).
• Training set size or how its ground truth was established (as no AI/algorithm training was performed or reported).

The 510(k) summary focuses entirely on non-clinical testing (static and dynamic compression, subsidence, and expulsion) to demonstrate substantial equivalence based on mechanical safety and performance and material properties to legally marketed predicate devices, rather than clinical performance (e.g., efficacy or safety in patient outcomes).

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in a clinical context, as the document explicitly states no clinical studies were performed. The acceptance criteria and "proof" presented are entirely based on the equivalence of mechanical properties to existing devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The SpineFrontier Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device System (Dorado IBC, Dorado PLIFT, Dorado ELIFT, Dorado ALIFT, Dorado TILT, Dorado TLIFT, Dorado Wide, and Ursa S-LIFT) is intended for intervertebral body fusion of the spine of skeletally mature patients, using autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The device is indicated for use in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous spinal levels from L2-S1. These DDD patients mav also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolithesis at the involved level(s).

Degenerative disc disease is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history or radiographic studies. These patients should be skeletally mature and have had six months of non-operative treatment.

The SpineFrontier Lumbar Intervertebral Body Fusion Device System is intended to be used with supplemental spinal fixation system(s) cleared for use in the lumbar spine.

The SpineFrontier Lumbar IBF System is a spinal intervertebral body fusion device system intended for intervertebral body fusion of the spine of skeletally mature patients, using autogenous bone graft to facilitate fusion. The system is comprised of devices made of PEEK Optima® LT1, with varying widths, lengths, and heights to fit the anatomical needs of patients. The devices have raised contours on the superior and inferior surfaces that will resist device movement following implant.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the SpineFrontier Lumbar IBF System. This is a premarket submission and as such, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a standalone study with performance metrics in the way a clinical trial for a new drug or novel medical device would.

Therefore, many of the requested sections about acceptance criteria and study details (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment for test/training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to this type of submission as the device is not an AI/ML-based diagnostic or prognostic device.

Here's an analysis of the provided information in relation to your questions:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Since this is a 510(k) submission for an intervertebral fusion device, the "acceptance criteria" are related to mechanical performance and demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than clinical performance metrics typical of AI/ML systems (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). The reported "performance" is that the device meets the criteria of established mechanical testing standards.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

Not applicable. This submission relies on mechanical testing against recognized standards, not a clinical test set of patient data. The "sample size" would refer to the number of devices tested mechanically, but specific numbers are not provided in this summary.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. Ground truth in the context of diagnostic/prognostic AI is not relevant for this device. Mechanical integrity is assessed against engineering standards.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically employed when there is human interpretation or classification involved, common in clinical studies or AI evaluations. This is a mechanical device.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

Not applicable. This device is not an AI system, so MRMC studies involving human readers and AI assistance are irrelevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Not applicable. This device is a physical intervertebral fusion system, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

Not applicable directly in the sense of clinical "ground truth." The "ground truth" for this device's evaluation is adherence to established mechanical performance standards as outlined in the ASTM documents and the FDA's guidance for intervertebral fusion devices.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The study proving the device meets its "acceptance criteria" (which in this context means demonstrating substantial equivalence for 510(k) clearance) is a mechanical testing evaluation.

• Study Design: The SpineFrontier Lumbar IBF System underwent mechanical testing to assess its performance.
• Methodology: The device was evaluated in accordance with the "FDA Document, Class II Special Controls, Guidance Document: Intervertebral Fusion Device, June 12, 2007." This guidance document defines the relevant performance criteria for such devices.
• Specific Tests Conducted:
  • ASTM F2077-03: Static and Dynamic Axial Compression, Static Torsion, and Static and Dynamic Shear Compression
  • ASTM F2267-04: Subsidence Under Static Axial Compression
  • ASTM Draft Standard F-04.25.02.02: Static Expulsion
• Results/Conclusion: The device was "found to meet criteria defined in the guidance document; and has been demonstrated to be substantially equivalent to predicate devices in terms of indications for use, function, materials, and performance (mechanical testing)." The submission explicitly states, "Clinical data was not required for this device."

In essence, the "study" was a series of engineering and materials tests designed to show that the proposed device performs mechanically at least as safely and effectively as legally marketed predicate devices, thereby establishing substantial equivalence as required for 510(k) clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Endoskeleton® TT IBD is indicated for use in skeletally mature patients with Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD) at one or two contiguous levels from L2-S1. DDD is defined as discogenic back pain with degeneration of the disc confirmed by patient history and radiographic studies. Patients should have received 6 months of non-operative treatment prior to treatment with the devices. The device must be used with supplemental fixation. These DDD patients may also have up to Grade I spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis at the involved level(s). It is indicated to be used with autograft bone.

The Endoskeleton® TT IBD is comprised of a variety of implant sizes to accommodate various patient anatomy and pathology, and associated instrumentation. All implantable components are manufactured from medical grade titanium alloy (Ti6A14V-ELI),

While the provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Endoskeleton® TT IBD, it does not contain the type of detailed information typically found in an AI/Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) study for performance evaluation.

This document describes a medical device (an intervertebral fusion device) which is a physical implant, not an AI software. The "Performance Testing" mentioned refers to pre-clinical testing for the physical device's adequacy (likely mechanical, biocompatibility, etc.), not a clinical study involving human readers or AI algorithms as would be the case for a SaMD.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, or training set details from this document. These types of details are specific to the evaluation of AI or software-based medical devices.

Ask a specific question about this device